International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 99–103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

Understanding the connection between blasting and highwall stability

R. Quentin Eades ⇑, Kyle Perry
Department of Mining and Nuclear Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65401, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Surface mines continue to implement highwalls for several reasons, such as increasing recovery, improv-
Received 24 June 2018 ing margins, and justifying higher stripping ratios. Highwall stability is a complex issue that is dependent
Received in revised form 29 July 2018 upon a variety of mining and geologic factors, and a safe design is necessary for a successful surface oper-
Accepted 25 August 2018
ation. To improve highwall stability, it is important to understand the connection between local geology
Available online 1 December 2018
and blasting. Explosives are employed throughout the mining industry for primary rock breakage. There
are a number of controlled blasting techniques that can be implemented to improve highwall stability.
Keywords:
These include line drilling, smooth wall blasting, trim blasting, buffer blasting, air decking, and presplit-
Controlled blasting
Highwall stability
ting. Each of these techniques have associated advantages and disadvantages. Understanding local geol-
Presplitting ogy is necessary for selecting the appropriate controlled blasting technique. Furthermore, understanding
Surface mining the limitations and conditions for successful implementation of each technique is necessary. A discussion
of the impact of geologic conditions on highwall stability is provided. Additionally, discussion is provided
for the successful incorporation of the controlled blasting techniques listed above, and the associated
mining and geologic factors that influence the selection and design of controlled blasting plans.
Finally, a new methodology is proposed.
Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Explosives are used throughout the mining industry as the stan-
dard for primary rock breakage, a critical part of the mining cycle.
In 2015, the U.S. consumed 2.2 million tons of explosives [1]. The
coal mining industry accounted for the majority of explosive con-
sumption, accounting for approximately 63% of total explosives.
The quarrying and nonmetal mining industries accounted for 12%
of explosive consumption, and the metal mining industry
accounted for 9% [1]. This constitutes 84% of the explosives used
in the U.S. However, the energy released during the detonation
process is often in excess of that required to adequately fragment
the surrounding rock [2]. This excessive energy, along with over
confinement and poor blast geometry, will cause damage to the
undisturbed rock mass beyond the intended boundary of the blast.
This event is known as overbreak or back-break [3].
There are a number of problems associated with excessive over-
break of a rock face. Chief among these are the safety concerns
related to loose rock and bench stability due to cracking [3]. Other
concerns include uneven burdens on the face for the next round of
blasts. Overbreak can also cause voids within the rock mass that
will reduce the overall effectiveness of the explosives. These con-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ren2h@mst.edu (R.Q. Eades).
cerns are compounded when blasting in a jointed rock mass. Those
rock masses with joints dipping towards the face have the poten-
tial for sliding along the joints. Those that are dipping away from
the face can lead to block toppling [3]. When slope stability
becomes an issue, a controlled blasting technique must be used
to improve stability.
There are a number of controlled blasting techniques that are
used in the mining, construction, and tunneling industries. The
most commonly used of these techniques is presplitting. However,
there are issues related to presplitting that may reduce its applica-
bility and performance. There are other techniques available to
improve highwall stability that can be used when presplitting is
not optimal. Each of these techniques has their own associated
advantages and disadvantages. It is key that blasters and engineers
have adequate knowledge of the tools available to ensure safety
and economic goals are achieved simultaneously.
2. Background
There are six controlled blasting techniques that have been
developed and designed to improve the stability of the final exca-
vation. Each one of these has their unique features and design con-
siderations for successful implementation into any blasting plan.
The six controlled blasting techniques that will be discussed are

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2018.11.016
2095-2686/Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
100 R.Q. Eades, K. Perry / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 99–103
(1) line drilling, (2) trim blasting, (3) buffer blasting, (4) smooth
wall blasting, (5) air decking, and (6) presplitting.
There are a number of uncommonly used controlled blasting
techniques. These techniques work efficiently in specific situations.
The first among these more uncommon techniques is line drilling.
This technique involves a single row of closely spaced, unloaded,
small diameter holes drilled along the final excavation line. The
primary difference between the line drilling technique and other
forms of controlled blasting is the absence of explosives within
the boreholes. These holes simply serve as a plane of weakness
for which the blast can break toward but not past. Another uncom-
mon technique is trim blasting, in which the annulus of the bore-
hole is loaded with crushed stone along the entire length of the
powder column. This acts as a coupling medium between the
explosive and the surrounding rock mass. The crushed stone acts
as a cushion to reduce stresses that are placed on the excavation
line by the explosives. A third uncommon controlled blasting
method is buffer blasting. This technique involves lightly loading
the last row of production holes to reduce the amount of damage
they will cause to the adjacent rock mass [4]. Buffer blasting is
most often used in conjunction with another controlled blasting
technique. Smooth wall blasting is the final uncommonly used con-
trolled blasting technique. While this technique is uncommonly
used on the surface, it is the most predominantly used technique
for underground operations [3]. This technique is also referred to
as post splitting, contour blasting, or perimeter blasting. Smooth
wall blasting involves drilling a line of boreholes along the excava-
tion limits, lightly loaded with explosives and decoupled from the
sides of the borehole. These holes are fired on the last delay of the
production blast.
Air decking is a widely used controlled blasting technique that
requires an air space in the blast hole above the explosive charge
[5]. The purpose of this air space, called a deck or air-deck, is to
allow for the gases generated during the detonation process to fill
the void instead of being forced into the adjacent rock mass [5]. A
conceptual diagram of a borehole with an air deck is shown in
Fig. 1. Air decking has a long history and has been used in a variety
of applications, such as presplitting, ground vibration control, and
blast economics improvement [2].
Presplit blasting is a technique that was initially developed dur-
ing the Niagara power project [6]. The original intent was to reduce
the amount of ground vibration that was created during blasting
operations. However, it was also noted that rock breakage on one
side of the fracture plane did not cause breakage on the other
side—an obvious reduction in the amount of overbreak. Presplit
blasting involves drilling a single row of holes along the back of
the final excavation zone [3]. Unlike smooth wall blasting, the pre-
split holes are fired on the first delay of the production blast. The
presplit technique is the most commonly used controlled blasting
technique for surface operations.
Fig. 1. Typical air deck schematic.
3. Methods
3.1. Line drilling
Line drilling has a number of requirements that must be satis-
fied to ensure success. The first requirement is that the drill holes
must be 38 to 76 mm in diameter and not loaded with explosives.
Drill holes that are greater than these diameters are seldom used
due to performance issues and increased drilling costs. A second
requirement is the reduction in the burden and spacing for the last
row of production holes in the blast. The burden and spacing for
the last row of holes is reduced 50% to 75% of the other production
holes [3]. This is coupled with the fact that the last row of holes is
loaded with less explosives. The last row of production holes is typ-
ically only loaded with 50% of the amount of explosives for other
holes. The explosives in these holes should be well distributed
along the entire length, through the use of decks, if necessary. A
detonating cord is recommended downhole to ensure detonation.
The final and most important requirement for line drilling is the
spacing of the line drill boreholes. These boreholes are only spaced
2 to 4 times the diameter of the borehole. This will cause the bore-
holes to act as a perforated plane of weakness that will reduce the
amount of overbreak that will occur during the production blast.
Due to the design of the line drill technique, there are a number
of known limitations and considerations that affect the perfor-
mance of any line drilling operation. The first and most important
of these considerations is the high amount of drill accuracy
required. While all controlled blasting techniques require varying
degrees of drilling accuracy, it is imperative that borehole devia-
tion is minimized when performing a line drill blast. Because the
line drill holes are unloaded and simply act as a weakness plane,
any deviation will directly affect the results of the excavation line.
In-plane deviation will cause an uneven face at the excavation
line. There are two concerns related to this situation. The first is
the potential safety concern related to the uneven material possi-
bly being fractured by the production blast but not successfully
fragmented from the excavation line. The fragmented material
may eventually slough from the excavation line and can cause
damage to personnel or equipment. The second concern is that
there will be uneven burdens along the face for the next produc-
tion blast, which may adversely affect the results of the blasting
operation. Out-of-plane deviation will leave either excessive toe
at the bottom of the blast or caprock at the top of the blast.
The final performance issue related to line drilling is the bench
height limitation. By relying on the line drill holes as the only form
of a weakness plane, complex geology will reduce the effectiveness
of any line drill operation as stress will concentrate around these
naturally occurring discontinuities over man-made discontinuities
[7]. These geologic features will limit the effective height of the
bench so that the amount of geologic conditions that are present
in the blast are limited. The final consideration for line drilling is
the expenses associated with drilling additional holes. Line drilling
requires the most holes compared to other controlled blasting
techniques and may be cost prohibitive.
3.2. Trim blasting
Trim blasting has relatively few requirements for successful
implementation. Trim blasting is used in conjunction with
large-diameter cartridge charges taped on detonating cord at
predetermined intervals. These trim blast holes are often fired
simultaneously or in groups to maximize the amount of charge
per eight millisecond (8 ms) delay intervals. The final requirement
for trim blasting is the drilling and initiation of the blast. Typically,
trim blasts are drilled and initiated after the primary production
 R.Q. Eades, K. Perry / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 99–103
blast has occurred. This makes trim blasting unique when com-
pared to other controlled blasting techniques since it allows for full
observation of the geology of the excavation line prior to drilling
and loading of the holes. This reduces the number of assumptions
that are required to design the trim blast when compared to other
controlled blasting techniques.
Many of the limitations of trim blasting are shared with smooth
wall blasting. Because trim blasting uses decoupled explosives,
drill hole accuracy is critical to the success of the operation. Bore-
hole deviations can cause excessive burdens throughout the exca-
vation line, which reduces the overall effectiveness of the trim
blast. Trim blasting is also dependent upon the ‘‘pseudo final exca-
vation line” that was left after the primary blast. The excavation
line will have variable burdens and will require a unique design
each time to ensure a controlled excavation line after the trim
blasting operation is complete [7]. In addition to these concerns,
the primary limitation for trim blasting is related to the production
and scheduling of blasts. Because trim blast is conducted after the
primary production blast, additional time is required to move the
drill rigs back on to the bench and drill holes for the controlled
blast shot [4]. This creates a delay in preparations for the next pro-
duction blast. This fact raises concerns with work and equipment
safety. There will be a period of time where the personnel and
equipment are working and operating near a highwall or an under-
ground heading where no measures have been taken to reduce or
control overbreak. Due to these issues, trim blasting is rarely cho-
sen as the controlled blasting technique for many operations.
3.3. Buffer blasting
Buffer blasting is a compromise solution between production
and safety. There are relatively few special requirements that must
be met for a successful operation. However, buffer blasting is rarely
used as the sole controlled blasting technique and is most often
employed in conjunction with another controlled blasting tech-
nique, such as presplitting. This is shown conceptually in Fig. 2:
production hole diameter, burden, and spacing are denoted as H,
B, and S, respectively. Presplit hole diameter and spacing are
denoted as h and s, respectively. The most important requirement
for successfully conducting a buffer blast operation is that the last
row of holes is loaded with no more than 50% of the explosives that
are used in the other production holes. It is also important that
these explosives are well distributed within the borehole to help
improve fragmentation of the rock mass. This will cause a smaller
amount of overbreak into the final excavation line, without signif-
icantly increasing the time required to perform the operation, or
significantly increasing the economics of the blast operation.
3.4. Smooth wall blasting
Smooth wall blasting is the most commonly used underground
technique and was developed in Sweden [3]. The smooth wall line
technique is composed around the final excavation line under-
ground where the holes are lightly loaded to reduce the amount
Fig. 2. Conceptual diagram of buffer blast holes used in conjunction with
presplitting.
101
of overbreak. These explosives are also decoupled from the sides
of the borehole [3]. The final feature of smooth wall blasting is that
the smooth wall holes are initiated after the primary blast. Smooth
wall blasting will allow blast damage to extend beyond the smooth
wall line before they are initiated. The most damaged rock will be
removed from the final excavation line and result in a smooth pro-
file for the perimeter. If more smooth wall holes are required than
can be initiated in a single 8 ms time period, the holes should be
fired in groups that will maximize the charge per delay. The bore-
hole spacing in smooth wall blasting can be larger than those used
in presplit blasting operations. The typical starting point for
burden-to-spacing ratio for smooth wall blasting is 1.5:1. To
ensure maximum relief of the rock, a pilot heading is sometimes
used. A pilot heading is a smaller tunnel that is excavated in the
center or near the top of the designed tunnel. After the pilot head-
ing has been completely excavated, the cross-section is drilled and
shot. This allows for the use of smooth blasting around a greater
portion of the excavation line [3].
The smooth wall technique also involves more perimeter drill
holes when compared to conventional underground methods. Dril-
ling costs have the greatest impact on the economics of any blast-
ing operation [3]. Additionally, smooth wall blasting is known to
have performance issues in weak rock formations [3]. If the rock
mass is too weak to support itself, the smooth wall blast will not
eliminate the need for additional support. Drilling accuracy is a
paramount concern with smooth wall blasting. Due to the addi-
tional challenges of drilling and blasting in an underground head-
ing, drill accuracy is critical to the success of a smooth wall blast.
When the smooth wall holes cannot all be fired on a single delay,
the relief is limited to the arch and partially down the rib because
of the muckpile. Therefore, smooth blasting results will degrade
further down the rib of the excavation line, which may cause safety
concerns in larger entries.
3.5. Air decking
There are a few key features of air decking that must be fol-
lowed to ensure successful implementation. The first is to ensure
a uniform air deck length for each of the holes. Large deviations
of air deck length between holes in the blast will create issues with
stresses imparted on the adjacent rock mass and will reduce the
effectiveness of the air deck. Two empirical correlations between
air deck length and fragmentation are suggested by Mel’nikov
et al. [8]. One of these used total charge length, including the air
deck, and the other with charge diameter [8]. Further studies have
shown conformity with these empirical correlations. Placement of
the air deck within the powder column is an additional concern.
Jhanwar conducted a study and found that placing the air deck in
the middle or at the top of the column achieved similar results
[9]. However, placing the air deck at the bottom of the powder col-
umn generated poor fragmentation and caused issues with exces-
sive burden at the bottom of the face for the next blast. The
standard practice for air decking is to place the air space in the
middle of the explosive column. This will concentrate all of the
explosive at the bottom of the borehole and reduce concerns with
excessive burden at the toe. Additionally, any damage that does
extend beyond the final excavation line is lower on the face when
compared to a technique that distributes the explosive throughout
the entire length of the powder column. This reduces danger to
personnel and equipment if a rock fall does occur because it will
happen lower on the face and have less travel time. The air deck
should only be placed in the top of the explosive column when it
is particularly important to ensure proper fragmentation of the
top of the explosive column. There are a few design considerations
that must be accounted for when using air decked blast holes.
102 R.Q. Eades, K. Perry / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 99–103
The primary concern with the air decking technique is
performance-related issues. Studies have shown that air decks per-
form optimally in soft- and medium-strength sedimentary rock
masses [2]. The air decking technique is noted to work particularly
well in highly jointed sedimentary rock masses because the
amount of shock energy required to generate additional cracks is
minimal [9]. This may result in incomplete fragmentation of the
rock mass and leave loose fragments on the excavation line.
Another engineering concern with air decking is the placement
of an instrument into the borehole to hold the stemming in place
on top of the air deck. In most cases, a stemming plug is deployed
down the hole to remedy this issue. However, it is difficult to accu-
rately measure the depth at which the stemming plug is deployed
in the borehole. This makes it difficult to keep the air deck length
between holes similar, reducing the effectiveness of the air deck.
A final consideration for air decking is the diameter of the borehole
used in the blast. It is generally accepted that air decking will pro-
duce results that are comparable but not quite as good as presplit-
ting. This is especially true in situations where a small borehole
diameter is used. In these scenarios, it is more appropriate to
employ the presplitting technique. When compared to the presplit-
ting technique, the air decking technique does not require addi-
tional boreholes or specialty explosive products. Therefore, a
large increase in blasting operations costs is not experienced.
3.6. Presplit blasting
The purpose of the presplit row of holes is to generate a vertical,
continuous, and thorough fracture plane at the back of the excava-
tion line. These holes are generally smaller in diameter than those
holes drilled for primary production. Fig. 3 shows an example of a
vertical presplit fracture plane created after a successful presplit
blasting operation.
There are a few salient features of presplitting that are required
for successful implementation. The first is that the holes in the pre-
split line are lightly loaded, which reduces damage to the rock that
will remain after the blast. The second key feature of presplitting is
that the explosives loaded in the holes must be decoupled from the
sides of the blast hole along the entire length of the powder col-
umn. This will further reduce damage to the rock mass as the gas
pressure will be able to ‘‘vent” to the air within the borehole
instead of being forced into the fracture network of the rock mass.
The final feature of presplit blasting is the timing of the presplit
holes. The presplit holes should be detonated either before the pro-
duction shot or on the first delay of the production shot, depending
on the number of presplit holes utilized. If more presplit holes are
required than can be initiated in a single 8 ms time period due to
Fig. 3. Vertical fracture plane generated from presplit blasting, adapted from study
by Konya and Walter [7].
regulations, then the holes should be fired in groups that will
maximize the charge per delay. Fig. 4 shows an example of the for-
mation of the fracture plane with different timing patterns [10]. It
is clearly evident that the presplit holes perform optimally when
they are fired simultaneously. When they are grouped together
with a minimum 8 ms delay between groups, there is deviation
in the fracture plane. However, when the holes are fired individu-
ally, there is a greater chance for the gas pressure to escape into the
fracture network and not drive the fracture plane. These delays
reduce the effectiveness of the presplit blast. Specialized presplit-
ting explosive products are often used to ensure success of the
presplit line [11].
Presplit blasting has both economic and performance concerns.
The economic concerns are due to the requirement of drilling
additional holes with different diameters and the use of specialized
explosive product. In order to successfully implement a presplit,
additional holes of smaller diameter must be drilled. These
additional holes can significantly increase the amount of time
spent drilling, which can affect blast economics significantly. When
a situation requires a specialized explosive product to ensure
success of the presplit, additional expense will be necessary when
compared to bulk explosive product.
Presplitting has three noted concerns that can significantly
affect the performance of the operation: (1) drilling accuracy, (2)
post-blast assessment, and (3) assumption-based approach [3].
Due to the drilling requirements for a presplit blast, drill accuracy
is a paramount concern for success. Borehole deviation caused by
inaccurate drilling will have a significant impact on the generation
of the vertical fracture plane. In cases where the deviation is out of
plane, the presplit fracture plane may not be generated or be
incomplete. In cases where the deviation is within the plane of
the presplit row, there will be additional cratering around the side
of the borehole that may allow the gas pressures generated during
the detonation process to be released into the adjacent rock mass,
reducing the effectiveness of the presplit operation.
It is difficult to assess the performance of presplit blasts until
the material from the production blast has been mucked and the
final excavation line is fully visible. This can create production
issues if the presplit did not perform adequately. Design changes
will have to be made at the same time that preparation for the next
blast is beginning. The final concern with presplit blasting is that it
is an assumption-based approach. Because presplitting is done
before the primary blast is conducted, it is not possible to fully
observe the local features of the rock mass, and assumptions must
be made so that the blast can be designed and performed.
3.7. Fast delay presplit
A new technique is being investigated at Missouri S&T to
address some of the issues related to using delays between presplit
holes. Ideally, all presplit holes are fired simultaneously. However,
due to pound per delay limits, some presplit holes are grouped
together and fired on separate delays. With the advent of electronic
detonators and the ability to program in one millisecond incre-
ments, new methodologies for presplit timing can be examined,
such as delaying each hole by one millisecond or shooting pairs
or groups at one millisecond delays depending on the allowable
charge size per delay.
Electronic detonators are a relatively new technology that
allows for the blaster to program a unique delay for each blasting
cap. These delays are accurate to within 0.01% of the programmed
delay [12]. Using this technology, the researchers will investigate
incorporating small delay timing sequences for presplit blasting
operations using electronic detonators while not exceeding the
maximum charge weight per 8 ms delay period. The goal of
this research is to promote smooth and continuous fracture
 R.Q. Eades, K. Perry / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 29 (2019) 99–103
Fig. 4. Effects of using delays on presplit holes [10].
propagation along the designed excavation line. When the presplit
holes cannot be fired simultaneously due to federal regulations
regarding explosive charge per 8 ms delay, the resulting fracture
plane will likely be jagged between groups of presplit holes, and
loose rock may still be hanging from the excavation line. This
results in a falling rock hazard for personnel and equipment oper-
ating around the highwall. The results of this research should yield
timing sequences that can be incorporated into presplitting opera-
tions that will improve overall highwall stability and require less
time and effort to stabilize the final excavation line. This will also
result in less remediation efforts due to the increase in stability.
The research team will conduct three phases of experimenta-
tion in this study. The first phase will be conducted at laboratory
scale using a solid, homogenous, and continuous material. This will
allow for comparison to previous research in the area of presplit
design. The second phase will test timing sequences in discontinu-
ous geologic material at the Missouri S&T experimental mine facil-
ity. The final phase of experimentation will involve full-scale
testing at an active mine site. This design will determine the effect
of material and scale on the various selected timing sequences for
presplit performance.
4. Conclusions
Explosives are heavily relied upon throughout the mining
industry. When using explosives for rock breakage, there is always
the potential to damage the final excavation line beyond the
intended boundary of the blast site. Excessive amounts of over-
break on a rock face can cause several issues. The most important
of these is the increased worker and equipment exposure to poten-
tial rock fall hazards. However, there are other issues related to
bench stability, and future blast performance based on the amount
of overbreak occurring during a blasting operation. To reduce the
amount of overbreak occurring at the final excavation line, a num-
ber of controlled blasting techniques have been developed. It is
important to understand the critical features of each technique
and the associated limitations and considerations of each tech-
103
nique when selecting an appropriate technique or techniques for
a blasting operation.
Presplitting is the most commonly used controlled blasting
technique. However, there are issues related to presplitting that
may reduce its applicability and performance. There are other
techniques available to improve highwall stability that can be used
when presplitting is not optimal. Each of these techniques is sim-
ilar, but there are key features that must be accounted for to ensure
successful implementation. If these features are not known or not
designed, controlled blasting may not be successful or can hinder
the mining operation as a whole. A new design is being studied
by a research team at Missouri S&T that will incorporate timing
sequences into presplitting operations using exact, programmable
delays from electronic detonator technologies. The results of this
research should provide mining operations and civil highway oper-
ations with a tool that will produce more stable excavation bound-
aries. This will result in lower costs and efforts to stabilize or
remediate the excavation.
References
[1] United States Geological Survey. 2015 Minerals Yearbook: Tantalum 2016.
[2] Jhanwar JC, Jethwa JL. The use of air decks in production blasting in an open pit
coal mine. Geotech Geol Eng 2000;18:269–87.
[3] ISEE. ISEE Blaster’s Handbook. 18th ed. Cleveland, OH: International Society of
Explosives Engineers; 2011.
[4] Mckenzie CK, Holley KG. A study of damage profiles behind blasts common
types of wall blasting, 2004;2:1–13.
[5] Urekar F. Air-decking techniques for controlled blasting in open pits,
1989:893260.
[6] Devine JF, Beck RH, Meyer AVC, Duvall W, Physicist S. Vibration levels
transmitted across a 2000:1–22.
[7] Konya C, Walter E. Surface blast design. 1st ed. NJ: Upper Saddle River; 1990.
[8] Mel’nikov N. A method of enhanced rock breaking by blasting. Sov Min
1979;15:565–72.
[9] Jhanwar JC. Theory and practice of air-deck blasting in mines and surface
excavations: A review. Geotech Geol Eng 2011;29:651–63.
[10] Plewman RP, Starfield AM. The effects of finite velocities of detonation and
propagation on the strain pulses induced in rock by linear charges. J South
African Institue Min Metall 1965;66:77–96.
[11] Dunn P, Cocker A. Pre-splitting - wall control for surface coal mines. In:
Metallurgy AI of M and, editor, Brisbane: 1995, p. 307–14.
[12] Dyno Nobel. DigishotÒ. Salt Lake City, UT: Dyno Nobel, Inc., 2016.